User talk:QDE-can/Archive

This page has 'old' discussions from my talk page. Moved here just to keep the talk page clean. — RB Ostrum. 20:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion #1

Ansel Adams and "handwriting analysis"

Hello,

I am working on an article on the Ansel Adams "lost negatives" controversy, which has to do with the questioned authenticity of glass plate negatives with a disputed assessed value of U.S. $200 million. One aspect of the situation is the claim that two handwriting analysts, Marcel Matley and Michael Nattenberg, verified that handwriting on manila envelopes was that of Ansel Adams' wife Virginia Best Adams. I have no knowledge of the field of document examination other than the critical reading I've done in recent days. My conclusion is that it is a field that has a continuum of rigor and credibility ranging from quackery to high scientific standards. My strong suspicion is that Matley and Nattenberg are not truly professional. I am wondering if you could look over the "final report" at Rick Norsigian's website, and possibly direct me to reliable sources that may bear on the credibility of the identification of Virginia Adams as the writer in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jim, Sorry for not replying sooner. I haven't been monitoring my user page and only just discovered your message.

You are correct in your assessment of the state of affairs in our discipline with respect to the competency of some people claiming skill in this area. I wish there was something that could be done about that but it is not easy. Anyone can profess skill regardless of their actual competency and charge significant fees for their services. Some have been doing it for years.

Regarding Mr Matley and Mr Nattenberg, I don't know either person personally and have never worked with, or against, either of them. Therefore, I can't comment very much on their competency or lack thereof. If you do some digging on the Internet, you will find lots of commentary about Mr Matley. I'm not sure about Mr Nattenberg; his name is new to me (but, in fairness, I expect my name would be new to him in turn). FWIW, I am not impressed by either person's credentials as they appear in the final report posted on Mr. Norsigian's website. That doesn't necessarily mean their opinion(s) in the matter are incorrect but, at the same time, I see very little to support any claim of competency.

I read through most of the final report but it really contains very little to review. I would not personally accept it as a 'formal' forensic report though I suppose some people might. The information provided is superficial and trivial to the point of being meaningless for the purpose of assessing the accuracy of the results. The image in the report that appears to show handwriting on several pieces of paper does not allow for much of an evaluation (though I doubt that was its intended purpose). I do not even know if this was the material provided to either of the examiners but, if it was, several potential limitations are apparent even based on a poor-quality image. First, the writing does not appear to be on separate pieces of original paper. Rather, the samples appear to be part of a single facsimile transmission. In itself, that isn't necessarily a big deal but it can be very difficult to assess important features in handwriting if only provided with a facsimile copy. Second, the amount of writing is rather limited though it might be adequate if, in fact, it is natural and freely-written. Beyond this, I have no idea what comparison materials were used as specimen samples. All in all, there really isn't much that can be said based on this 'final report'. But I would not personally accept any of it as 'proving' authorship of the questioned writings.

As for a reliable source regarding the handwriting and potential authorship, I think your best recourse would be to obtain the services of a qualified document examiner. To that end I suggest you begin with the examiner listing at the ABFDE website. I suspect that you might find someone on that list who is more familiar with Mr Matley and/or Mr Nattenberg, and who might willing to provide a better response to your question regarding their competency.

As a side note, have you read the postings of A.D. Coleman on this matter? Very interesting reading (though he goes into many things outside the scope of my expertise). Best of luck. RB Ostrum 20:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello RB,

Thank you for your response which verifies many of my suspicions. I am Jim Heaphy who posted the comments about the "handwriting analysis" on A.D. Coleman's blog. Obviously, I can't cite my own blog posts in a Wikipedia article, so may not be able to discuss the issue of the handwriting analysis unless I can find reliable published sources. I am obligated to avoid WP:OR on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you run across any discussion of this matter in professional journals in your field, or in any reliable publication. Thank you very much. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Jim,

I can appreciate your predicament. Finding a good, independent and unbiased source to support your beliefs in this matter will be a challenge. Please note that doesn't mean your concerns are unwarranted or your beliefs inaccurate.

I will let you know if I notice anything in reputable QD journals or other good sources. However, I don't expect to see much unless someone asks a qualified document examiner (see my earlier comments) to examine the material themselves and, in that event, there may eventually be some discussion at a conference or meeting. But that usually only happens after the issue has been fully resolved which may take considerable time.

Most qualified document examiners will not comment about either the work or the qualifications of another (purported) examiner unless they have seen the material for themselves or they personally know something about that person and their competencies. And there is always the issue of 'client priviledge' which would likely restrict any commentary by someone who was actually retained to do the work.

I wish I could be of more help to you. I will keep an eye out for anything relating to this. Brent -- AKA RB Ostrum 20:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

SPIE

Hi there, I noticed that on your userpage you have indicated you are a member of SPIE. You may wish to add yourself to the new category for SPIE Wikipedians (Category:Wikipedians in SPIE). There is also a userbox if you prefer. —Entropy (T/C) 22:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Entropy, thanks for the notice. I will do that. — RB Ostrum. 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)